The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-23
AN NIHIPORTANT DECISION OF THE
STATE SUPREME COURT.
Tho Jurisdiction Of Trial Justices in
Cases Of Petit Larceny.
THE News AND COURIER BUREAU, |
-lOl MAIN ST., COLUMBIA, Feb. l8.

THE News AND COURIER BUREAu,)
\ iOl MAIN ST., COLUMBIA, Feb. 18.
Quite sensation was caused in
the legal circle of Columbia to-day
0y the announcement that decision
had been filed in the Supreme Court
that trial justices had no more juris-
dictton In cases Of petty larceny any
more than they had in cases of mur.
DOR. A representative Of the Bureau
ascertained that such a decision had
been fled, and as it is Of Importance
to every trial justice in the State, he
obtained a copy Of the document.
Hereafter every person charged with
petty larceny and brought before a
trial justice will, If the evidence is
sufficient, be sent to Jail to await trial
ih the Court of General Sessions, un.
less a bond Ia given. The jails, Of
course, will soon be overstocked.
The following is the decision:
The State Of South Carolina In the
Supreme Court-November Term,
1886-The State, respondent, vs..
Robert jenkins, appellant.
OPINION--SIMPsON, c. J.
. The appellant was indicted for
perjury, charged to have been com.
mitted by him in previous prosecu.
tion against him for petit larceny be.
fore trial Justice. The Judge was
requested to charge that a trial jus.
itlceEhad no jurisdiction in cases of
petit larceny, and therefore that per-
jury could not be committed in such
q case. .. ..
This request was refused, where.
upon the defendant was convicted.
The only question in the appeal is,
was II error for the Judge to refuse
appellants request, which raises the
question whether or not trial justices
have jurisdiction in cases of petit lar.
,ceny.
4 Section 10, Article I, OF the Con-
stitution, provides that Justices of
the peace, or other officer authorized
by law, shall have iuris.
diction in all cases less than felony
where the punishment does not ex-
ceed a fine Of hundred dollars, or
imprisonment for thirty days, and
that such offences shall be summarily
tried by them. Il y Il
'" There is no doubt that trial Jus.
tice falls under the terms "other ofli.
Ger authorized by law" and that he
has all the powers conferred by this
section of the Constitution. State
vs.. FillebrOwn, 2 S. c., 404. 1t is
apparent, too, that this section con
fers upon him Jurisdiction in all Of.
fences under felony where the pun.
!lshment does not exceed that men.
toned above.
W Section 4,498, General Statutes,
declares that larceny Of goods y II y
below the value Of twenty dollars
n shall be a misdemeanor and consid.
cred a petit larceny. We suppose
the previous prosecution before the
trial Justice was for larceny of
goods below the value of twenty dol.
, lars. 1t was, therefore, a misde.
Fmeanor, and consequently less than
felony, and to that extent having one
of the elements necessary to the ju.
risdiction of the trial Justice.
h. The other element, however, is
equally necessary, to wit, the charac.
: ter of the punishment, the limit be-.
ing thirty days imprisonment and
one hundred dollars fine. Is that
the punishment Of petit larceny?
There seems to be no punishment,
y strange to say, affixed 20 this offence
by our Statute. Section 2.498 supra,
describes the offence, to wit, the steal
ing Of gonds below the
value oftwenty dollars, and declares
: that If considered to be q misde.
meanor and petit larceny, but omits
punishment.
~ Nor have we found any other Act
aliixing punishment thereto. Under
q these circumstances we must look to
the common law for the punishment.
Misdemeanors at common law are
punishable by fine or imprisonment,
or both, according t9 the degree.
Russell on Grimes, page as. But the
limit is not fixed. So that there is
no express law either found in our
Acts Of Assembly or in the common
I law which limits tie punishment Of
this offense to fine of hundred
dollars and imprisonment for thirty
days. ,On the contrary the State vs..
Williams, ID SC, II, expressly de.
cldf8g- that it ] not 80 limited, and on
that acc 9ount shat case holds that the
Court of Geferal Sessions has juris.
diction, oSTerruling the case of tho
State ys. Hs,srper, 6 S. c., 464, which
held that thf9 Court Of General Ses.
eions had nBo jurisdiction in petit
larceny, sbeN jurisdiction being ex.
in Courts of trial Justices.
If, then. thE{ punishment is not lin.